died. 45% of the domestic homicides now do not involve guns. a figure considerable higher than in the 1980's. in 1996, i had the pleasure of voting for the leighton berg amendment and those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors were permitted from owning firearms and same with those who had permanent restraining orders. obviously records of the convictions and restraining orders must be entered in the national check background system and the chairman spoke about the interest in that for that to be effe effective. it distresss that me that all of these lateers according to the center of american progress quote only 36 states have submitted domestic violence

misdemeanors to the index and they have submitted 20 or fewer and a smaller number of states have submitted regards regarding restraining orders. 19 states have submitted dome domestic violence restraining orderers and of these nine states have submitted ten or fewer end of quote. i note that rhode island has submitted zero domestic violence misdemeanor arrest and also for hawaii, illinois 1-0, minnesota, 16-2. new york, 0-2 and vermont, 2-0. iowa ranks near the tops of the state but i can confess we have

do a better job in my state. 79% of the records submitted come from three small states. as the report says, quote, if all states submitted records of misdemeanor convictions at the average rate of these three states we can project there would be 2 million records and more than 40 times the number currently submitted end quote. this means that large numbers of prohibit person under the law can purchase a firearm because the instant background check fails to identify it as such. our system is full of holes and greatly reducing the effectiveness of background. senator cruise and i offered an amendment to legislation before the senate that would have fixed the system. it would have improved state compliance for mental health ror

records. it received the most bipartisan support of any other legislation but it didn't move because it didn't require the 60 required votes. we should do the same with respected persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes. we should be able to gain bipartisan effort to enact legislation of this type but that is not the majority approach. there are two bills before the committee on domestic violence. one from senator klobuchar expands prohibited person to have dating beyond the law and add convicted stalkers to the list of prohibited person. another by senator bloomberg expands the ship and would make those subject to temporary retraining order entered without notice to the alleged abusers of

prohibited persons. a significant problem persist with the background checks under the law. it is hard to believe that expanding the universe of prohibited persons whose record will not show up when a background check is performed will reduce homicides. i fear false hopes are being raised. in many states, few people are convicted of misdemeanor stalking. in maryland, for instance, zero were convicted of that. one in arkansas. five in new mexico. making these offenders prohibited persons will not accomplish much. these bills would expand retroactively prohibited person and make individuals allowed to own guns criminally

retroactivell by passing the legislation. when he is going to take the time to go through the bills and see if they determine the parties of the bill? who is going to input the information? suppose someone determined a prior conviction was for conduct against a dating partner erroneously what recourse will they have to demonstrate they are not prohibited? how are guns taken from the prohibited person? how soon would a law enforcement be removed from another job to do this job? and restraining orders issued without notice to the defendant don't lead to permanent orders and that person will not know he or she is a prohibited person if during the brief period the order is in effect law

enforcement should show up to take away a gun. we should also be very skeptical it will be entered into system in time to make the cut when they apply. making it complete would be more likely to help. i understand this hearing was asked many months ago but were put off. the klobuchar bill was introd e introduced more than a year ago. but only as we are about to head out of town with a few legislative days remaining has this hearing taken place responding to the request of advocates. only after the number of days until the election grew short did the committee schedule the hearing.

the committee has not held a markup for bills for two weeks. had the majority been serious about reducing domestic violence we had the time to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution. there was a real opportunity for a bipartisan effort to combat intimate homicides of all time but that opportunity has been squandered. the bill before us and the committee deals with the problem of keeping prohibited persons from owning firearms. i hope going forward we will work to find bipartisan, well thought out practical ways to protect women and men from violence of all kinds. thank you. >> i think this hearing will help advance that cause. and because senator klobuchar and bloomberg have shown leadership in this area and have bills in this area they have requested making an opening

statement so i will recognize the two of them for opening statements. first senator klobuchar and then we will proceed with the witnesses. >> thank you very much, chairman whitehouse and thank you for holding this hearing. and thank you to senator bloomberg for his work in this area. we have a multiple shootings that killed people over the last several years from newtown to nua we have seen this more to be done. i would point out some of the issues raised by senator graphy about the record keeping -- some would have been helped by the mention to you bill that had penalties for states and grants to make it easier to enter the data. in states that require a background check for handgun sales 38% fewer women are shot

to death by their partners. as a former prosecutor, i shave seen first-hand how domestic violence destroys lives and tears apart family. i ran an office of 800 people and charged with protecting domestic violence victims and enforcing the gun laws we had on the book. enforcing the laws involving felons in possession of a gun was one of my major priorties for those eight years. one of the things i learn as a prosecutor is there is still more work to be done. i was reminded of this over the christmas holidays in 2011 when i went to the sadest funeral for officer sean synder. his department received a domestic violence call from a

17-year-old victim. the officer showed up at the door wearing a bullet proof vest but no vest could have protected him when the perpetrator shot him in the head and killed him. at the funeral in that church were his three children. only a week ago the officer was there with the family at the church play. that day he was in front in a coffin and his three little children walked down the aisle and i will never forget the little girl in a blue dress covered with stars. that is what this is about. last year the women of the senate stood together to reauthorize the violence against women act. the bill that was signed into law included the provision i worked on with former republican senator hutchinson that strengths federal stalking laws to develop technology that predators are using.

passing that big is a critical step in protecting women. but there is more to be done. a report found 57% of mass shootings involve domestic violence. that is why last july i introduced the domestic violence and stalking victim protection act. it would help protect stalking victims and keep guns out of the hands of people that stalk. it makes sure stalkers cannot get guns. many states are starting to do this with democratic and republicans support including my own state. 1-6 women have been stalked during their lifetimes. it is often the first step in a behavior that ends in criminal. 76% of women who are murdered by partners were first stalked by their partner.

second, our bill would expand the definition of victims who are covered. people who are not married or not living together and don't have a child are not covered. their stalkers are legally able to obtain firearms despite committing a domestic violence crime or subject to a permanent restaining the order. we will expand the definition to include dating partners. many states have done this. we are bringing the federal law in line with what many states have done. i have been proud to stand up for this bill with former representative gabby giffords and her husband in support of his bill. like gabby and mark, in my home state of minnesota we value hunting and the outdoors. if is isn't duck season or pheasant season in minnesota it is deer season. when i looked at doing this bill

i thought of my uncle in his deer stand and would this do anything to hurt him. the answer is clearly no. this bill is about preventing a person with a documented history of violence, mental illness or stalking from getting a firearm. i know senator bloomenthal is working on this, too. we look to stregthen the laws and bring them more in line with the current laws states have dealing with crimes of violence toward women and same-sex partners. the bills are simple and designed to focus on an area where we know we have seen rampant violence. i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. i hope our colleagues will join

us in supporting the bills. and one of the reasons that the senator waited to do the hearing was i have been wait to get a republican cosponsor on the bill. i have been very close several times. i know i am going to get it done. but that is the reason we waited to have the hearing. thank you. >> senator bloomenthal. thank you, senator whitehouse and i want to join you inthanking the chairman. and absolute senator klobuchar who has been so steadfast and strong in advancing this cause. i am proud to be working with her. i want to thank the other

members of the committee include senator durbin, fienstein, and the late senator loutenberg for their leadership in this cause and the many advocates around the country who are championing common sense measures to stop gun violence and domestic violence. the two together are a toxic, deadly combination. women are five times as likely to die from domestic violence when there are guns in the household. i especially want to thank the survivors. the loved ones of the victims who are here today. i know how much courage and strength it takes for you to be with us but your presence is so

powerful and meaningful and far more eloquent than anything i can say here or anywhere else. i want to say a particular thanks to a connected family who is here. mary and doug jackson. their daughter, lori, was a victim of domestic violence. but she chose not to accept it. she displayed the courage that her parents taught her and she decided to break with it. as many of you know that decision takes enormous bravery and resolute. she broke with her husband and went to live with her parents

and took her 18-month old twins and left her abusive husband and decided to begin a new life. lori's act of courage should have liberated and freed her. but instead she became a victim again and this time fatally. her estranged husband tracked her down in her mother's house and used the gun he was still legally allowed to poses to gun her down and seriously injure her mother firing bullets at her that almost killed mary jackson. mary and doug jackson are with us today. and i am so grateful for you joining us. lori jackson sought successfully

a temporary retraining order which should have protected her. the law failed lori jackson. the judge granted that retraining order after determining her husband posed a clear threat to her safety and the safety of her children. but even after that determination lori's husband was still able to keep the gun that killed her. even if he had not posesed that gun he could have legally purchased a new one. even at the moment of heightened rage when he learned she left and was seeking the restraining order, in most sates someone subject to a temporary restraining order can lose access to his house, his children, to his car, but under

federal law he can still keep his guns. somebody might be considered too dangerous to see their son but not too dangerous to buy a handgun. and because of that loophole in our law, abuse victims are the least protected by the laws of our nation at the moment they are in the most danger. at the moment when they are most likely to be physically harmed because of the rage and wrath of their estranged spouse or partner they are less protected than at any other time. i have offered legislation to close the loophole and require a period after the domestic abuser is subject to a temporary

restraining order. when a judge has found someone poses a threat and issues a temporary restraining order the subject that of that order should be barred from purchasing or posesing a gun and the justice system should be helping the potential victim. unfortunately and tragically and unacceptablely most victims are still at the mercy of their abusers rage disspite the courage that lori jackson demonstrated in breaking with an abusive spouse. and i have the gun homicide prevention act which makes sure there are incentives and resources to the states so they will enforce these laws. these states are provided with grants under the legislation

that encourages them to get illegal guns from the hands of dangerous people and away from dangerous situations and it gives them resources to do so. enforcement has i know from being attorney general from a the state of connecticut for a couple decades and a federal law enforcement officer as the united states attorney is the key to making the law real in people's life. federal law is a shadow of what it should be in protecting against gun violence and domestic abuse. i want to recognize again the thousands of men and women have have become victims as a result of this gaping unforgivable loophole in federal law. their hope and courage will inspire me and the body just as

lori jackson's parents should give us the resoluteness and strength to make this law real. i want to thank them again, the advocates who are before us today on this panel and mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> senator durbin, you wish to make a statement? >> i want to especially recognize the attendance of mr. daniel who is a resident of illinois and is going to tell us the sad story of his sister. he is a conservative constitutionalist member of the nra and comes asking for protection for women like his sister and others who might have a chance if we pass the mansion to me background check to keep guns out of the hands of

convicted felons and mentally unstable people as well as the bloomenthal and klobuchar edge legislation. will the witnesses please stand to be sworn? do you afirm the testimony you give here will the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. i will introduce the panel and we will go through their testimony. i will first introduce jaclyn campbell who is the wolf chair of the johns hopkins school of nursing and the nurse faculty scholar programs. in 2012, she was recognized by the centers for disease control and prevention as one of the 20 national leaders in injury and violen violence prevention for her work

in domestic violence. she was a member of the department of defense task force on domestic violence. she has more than 225 articles and seven books and policy service nationally and internationally related to women and violence and cut a vacation short to be with us. we are honored she is here. joyce lee malcolm will testify after. she is the patrick henry prof s professor of constitutional law at george university. malcolm is the author of seven books and numerous articles and her book to keep and bear arms, the origins of a right is was

sited by the supreme court in the district of columbia versus heller case. we will hear from sheriff smelling who was arrested sheriff of a wisconsin town in 2010 and he established the first ever domestic violence position in the state. he has served as a law enforcement officer for two decades and resides in mount pleasant. i understand it is his son's 16th birthday so we are grateful his participation in the hearing. i know your son must be very proud. next we will hear from justice mccafry who was born in northern irland but called philadelphia his home since he was five. he served as a marine, police

officer and his state as trial and now appellate judge. he is solves problems across the state of pennsylvania and special courts and has been at the forefront of creating veterans courts across pennsylvania. and elvin daniel joins us from illinois and he is hear to share the story of his sister who was killed by her estranged hubs days after she obtained a restraining order against him. unfortunately her story highlights the urgent need too well for universal background checks. we thank mr. daniel for coming and his courage. starting with dr. daniel. i am grateful to testify in

these important hearings today. i will present data from homicide women and important research from national databases on this topic. i testified today as a citizen, nurse and when the endorsement of the american academy of nursing. the united states has been said has a higher homicide rate of women than all other westernized countries and amongst the highest rate in the world. it is pronounced for homicides prevented by guns and the rate exceeds 11 times the average rate ra rate of other injusteralized countries. neither complete or without coding errors the fbi report is the most complete national database of homicide with

information on the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. in the most recent data available from 2011, 45% of the murders of women were committed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband. if we only examine the homicides where the perpetrator relationship was identified more than half, 54%, of the homicides of women are committed by a husband, boyfriend or former husband. there were ten times as many women killed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband as by a male stranger in that database. the majority of the violence is perpetrated with firearms. in the analysis of the 2011 murders of women there were 17, 007 females murdered by males in single-victim, single-offender

incidents. of the homicides which the weapon was determined 51% were committed with firearms than any other weapon. women are killed by partners or expartners when they are pregnant. in a study of maternal mortality in a state of maryland two doctors examined medical records of women who died during the pregnancy and the first post-partum year and homicide were the leading cause of death to the pregnant women and immediately post-partum. firearms were the most common method of death. 61.8%. a current or foreign intimate partners were in more than half

of the studies. in another national studies firearms counted for the majority of the homicide and a majority were not married to the victims. research my peers and i have conducted provides further insight into how firearms and domestic abuse elevate the risk of homicide for american women and explain why concern federal laws restrict certain individuals from buying guns. abusers use guns when present to threaten a victim. in a study conducted with over 400 women at shelters in california, 2/3rds of the people who reported a gun in the home said their partners used a gun with 71% threatening to shoot or kill and 5.1% actually shooting at her. among the most rigorous research

on factors that influence a woman's likelihood of homicide was a survey conducted by myself and colleagues. we compared a group of abused women who were murdered by their partners to another group who wasn't. gun access or ownership increased the risk of homicide over and above prior domestic violence by 5.4 times. it was the strongest respect for an abused woman to be killed by her partner or ex-partner. when the perpetrator committed suicide after killing their partner the gun ownership increased the odds by a ratio of 13. neither study found evidence that women frequently use

firearms to defend themselves against abuse or access to the firearm reduces the risk of homicide for the women victim. in leaving out abusiveida datin partners leaves out a huge part of the crimes. the domestic violence crimes committed by dating partners have been rising for three decades and boyfriends commit more homicides than do spouses. the supplemental homicidal report doesn't code for ex-boyfriends and this category is growing. estimating from our study we find that approximately 300-500 female martner homicides should be added to the approximately 1,000 already counted in the supplemental homicide reports. the bill 290 would expand the

national domestic violence laws who together represent 48% of the male domestic violence perpetrators in the study. and that is an important way to keep women safe and save lives. there is evidence to stregthen firearm prohibition against domestic violence abusers reduce homicide. two separate studies found that state statutes restricting those from accessing or posesing firearms are assocated with reduction in intimate partnerships. they found that when they are limited from getting the guns

along with state domestic violence restraining orders in the federal dota base reduced by 12% for female and overall 11%. women who suffer abuse are among the most important for society to protect. congress has an opportunity to do by keeping these people from getting guns. ample evidence shows in doing so saves lives. i want to end with a quote from one of the women i interviewed who was the mother of one of the people killed. she said please let her story be told. told let her death be for nothing. thank you. >> thank you, dr. campbell. dr. malcolm. >> first, i would like to thank the committee for inviting me. it is an honor to be present at

this important hearing. i think we can agree we have the same goals here that we want to protect victims of domestic violence and more generally we are interested in public safety. the current law on the books are not perfect but they have a great virtue of according with long-standing traditions of american law by protecting the rights of everyone concerned. the rights of the supreme court defined as deeply rooted in the nation's history fundamental to the scheme of ordered liberty. and with respect to chairman whitehouse the bills behind the hearing do do violence to the right of the-second amendment and fourth amendment right against search and seizure and most importantly to providing due process in the normal way. i would like to first start with

statistics to put this debate in context. a fact that is seldom advertised and that homicides in the country have been down sharply for the last 20 years as well as other violent crime. the last time that the crime rate for serious crime murder, rape, robbery and assault was this low gasoline was 29 cents a gallon. and the average american working person was earning $5, 807. it is hard to remember gas at 29 cents a gallon. the rate of family violence which is much more the focus of this hearing has also fallen between 1993-2002 and continues to fall. 1-10 violent victimizations involve family violence. and most family violence is simple assault. less than 1 half of 1% of the

victims are killed. the por portion of female homicide killed by guns is down and women killed by other means has gone up. the two bills present various problems for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and for the protection of search and seizure and due process. there is talk of non-cohabiting individuals and involving not only serious incidents of violence, but bullying and other acts under the definition of harassment which could be verbal and vague. it tends to growly depending on

what you consider harassment. they might lose the right to have a firearm for saying something verbally. the change in the temporary restraining order is the biggest concern. the temporary restraining order means the person who is alleging they are endangered after they file for this, a mere allegation, can send the police to the person they are listing home's searching for guns without a hearing. as the red queen in ally in wonderland said it is punishing first then hearing.

in a temporary restraining order in the past, half of those who have been labelled as being dangerous have been found not guilty. so they would get their weapon taken awake and then a hearing at which they would be allowed to produce some kind of evidence to the contrary. the other aspect that is troubleling is making this retroactive so that anyone ever convicted of harassment or had a temporary retraining order against them would lose the right to be armed indefinitely. many people that have suffered plea bargains would find they no longer have a right to be armed for the rest of tear their lives. the intention is there to

protect women but both have the wrong approach. it is wrong to deprive people of their basic rights and wrong to deprive people of the right of due process and opportunity to present evidence before they are treated like they are guilty and afterwards things are sorted out. i would like to just conclude with the majority opinion written by justice heller and scule where he ends by saying the inshi -- shinement takes it off the table. thank you. >> we turn to the sheriff now. thank you very much for being here. >> thank you mr. chairman and other members of the committee. thank you for host hosting this

hearing. i am a sheriff in wisconsin. i am a conservative republican and i am hear to ask you to pass two common sense laws that will protect our sisters, daughters and mothers by keeping the hands from the domestic abusers. i have seen tragic violence first hand. i want to tell you about one incident that changed my career. in 2004, a woman was a abused and left for dead. after three years she had the courage to divorce her husband. she had taken out multiple restraining orders in this time frame. he beat her with a baseball bat in the head and as she tried to

fight back he threatened her a 38-caliber gun. he bound and gagged her, filled a garbage can with snow, and put her in a garage for 36 hours. we were able to rescue her before she died. she had a miscarriage and lost all ten of her toes due to frost bite. she is one of the most wonderful people i know and has been an advocate for abuse after a decade of being almost killed. we have become close and my eyes are opened it the domestic and gun violence. i am close to melvin daniel and i have been moved by his sister's story. we were the first in the state to have a full-time domestic

violence specialist. we work closely with victims to see how we can best were protect them. domestic violence calls are the most dangerous ones they will respond to. the last thing the victim needs and my deputies needs is a dangerous abuser armed with weapons. they threaten to shoot by deputies routine prior to arrival. according to the fbi statistics, 150 law enforcement officers have been killed in action while responding to domestic violence cases. i am proud to sponsor a bill called the safe act that ensures guns are kept from the hands of domestic violence abusers. it was signed by our republican governor scott walker. the first bill is act 1290 and i ask you to pass it.

it will close the loophole that allows abusive boyfriends to buy and have guns because they are not married and blocking stalking victims. dangerous boyfriends are just as scary as husbands. they hit just as hard and fire weapons with the same deadly force. more women are killed by abusive husbands than spouses. cheryl gill berg was killed by her boyfriend. the killer shot cheryl with her own gun. she was seeking a restraining order but that is not good enough. if you never been married to your abuser federal law will likely not stop him from buying or purchasing a gun. the second bill would require criminal background checks for buyers who shop with unlicensed

sellers. current federal law only requires them to pass the background check if they shop with a dealer. this gaping hole in the law means a convicted wife beater can slip through the cracks by buying a gun from a seller who doesn't own a gun store. this is what happened with tony dar who was convicted of battery twice and legally prohibited from posesing a gun because of a restraining order. so we found an ad for a 9 millimeter in a local paper. they met at a bastore and there was no check but he did ask you are not going to use this to kill anyone? he kill both his children and both of their mothers. we see the terror that a busers

create when they are armed. we have a community of about 200,000 people and if my officers are working with the citizens we are sworn to protect i want to know the laws are doing everything to keep guns from the abusive hands. i have made a priority to talk to victims. i have teen the yelling, battery and unfortunately homicide. when an abuser has a gun victims say it isn't a question of if he will use it against he it is a matter of when. i am asking you to stand up to abuse by fixing the out of date laws and passing clear, common sense legislation. thank you for your time. >> thank you, sheriff and happy

birthday to your son. we will hear from the judge and then we may go after that to catch the end of the vote. >> good morning. >> your microphone, please. >> it says talk. i should have known that. good morning and thank you for the opportunity to -- it appears to me the bills look to stregthen current federal dom t domestic violence laws to deal with the state's current laws. a goal that is strengthening such laws that would be lotable goal. i have spent more of my adult

life in law enforcement and that was 20 years as a police officer and detect, ten years as a trial judge, four in the appellate and now a justest in the supreme court of pennsylvania. i can say born of experience our law enforcement finds itself as a react not a proactive posture. and by that i mean more often than not our law enforcement community show up after the fact. i was one of those. i would show up after the fact. i saw the blood. i went to court. and so much of the time i saw crime in the streets and people getting victimized in the streets of our cities, getting victimized in the courtroom and that was what made me go to law school to become a jurist because i felt people needed

somebody there that experienced what goes on in the streets. i agree we should have boyfriends, dating partners are part of it. we have it in pennsylvania. it is important. they can shoot, they can beat just like anybody else. but, you know, as dr. malcolm points out, i went from being a cop where i cured about the victims to a jurist where i cared about the accused. we have two parties here and my gun control goal is to have a level playing field. i thought it was needed and necessary was law enforcements ability to be there before the abuser got to the victim. when i was a cop in my day we didn't have that opportunity. it wasn't there. but let me tell you something, we can enact all of the laws we want. but the bad guys on the street and i am out there where robber

meets the road as a cop and that judge. i created the first ever domestic violence court program in pennsylvania because i saw it to be so important. the frustration was as follows. victims are terrified. senators get to court with memory loss. prosecutors don't want to move forward. they are scared. they are intimidated. they don't have a support network. in philadelphia we do. we are one of the more progressive cities around. but only 35% of the prelim mother pfas become permanent because people are not showing up. they are afraid. of the pfa temporary ones 25% include an order barring a firearm. only 25%. what is going on here?

well, again, the frustration comes in that we have to protect our victims. how do we do that? once upon a time unless you had a crystal ball you could not. but we have the technology to give law enforcement the capabilities. our probation officers across the country have gps that is available to them so they can track people under their supervision. let's say for our discussion purpose right now and keep in mind domestic violence isn't just about firearms. the overall majority of domestic violence cases i saw on the streets and in the courts were done with first, knifes, blunt objects. i like to think of this as a major epidemic in the country. we have legislation that curtails more and more people's ability to have a gun but domestic violence is out there. people that want to get a gun or stab you will do it despite

whatever laws you put on the books. what i think it is important is being pro-active. and by that i mean right now, through technology, we can give your officers gps assisted support. so the actual patrol officer in the neighborhood moments away from the victim can know if the stalker who is wearing a gps device on their ankle or wrist is approaching them. it comes up on the victim's cellphone and the officer in the neighborhood is notified. the officer responds and we prevent the violence. it is about prevention to me. if we don't have prevention what are we going to do? show up after the fact? pick up the pieces? transport the body to the morgue? that is what watt what we want. i cannot believe we don't have

bipartisan legislation. when can stand up and say they are not opposed to domestic violence? everyone has a mother some wives, some daughters, some gra granddaughters. none of us want to see this happening. legislation is great. this is a beautiful place. first time here. but at the end of the day, tonight in philly, some woman is going to be battered and probably has been battered for years. she looks at her children and she can not escape. if we take it down to court what do we get? they hug and kiss. emotions are down. someone talks to the victims and the case disappears and we have a frustrated prosecutor and more frustrated court. we need to do things that will make it happen. you put that bracelet on the abuser and that will send the

message. you come within a mile but you will be locked up and it will be swift and ready bad for you. you want to talk about deterance? it can happen. my point is there are ways we can address domestic violence well beyond violence dealing with guns. some of the states with the strictest laws we have a growing epidemic in the violence. that being said my position is i think that i strongly support the concept of bringing in the partners and the boyfriends. it is important for law enforcement. again our state has it. i cannot speak for others and that being said i will forgo my last two minutes, i guess. >> thank you, judge mccaffery. i think we should take a run for the vote. mr. daniel, we'll be recessed for 10-15 minutes to get over to

the floor and back. as soon as i am back we will come back into session. >> no rush. we can take a moment to get back into our places. thank you for the interuption. let me turn to mr. daniel with our aprecation and apology for the interruption.

>> thank you. >> is your micrmicrophone? >> i was reminded to turn it on before i started, too. good morning. thank you chairman whitehouse and senator grassley and the members of the judiciary committee for holding this important hearing. my name is elvin daniel. i am a republican, i am an avid hu hunter, a gun owner and i enjoy using by guns for target practice with family and frie s friends. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment and nra i believe. i believe in common sense sensible gun laws. i am hear today to speak for my

sister xena because she is not here to speak for herself. xena loved life. all she wanted to do was be a mother to her two daughters. she loved disney world. rick springfield. and helping other people. as a matter of fact her last moments in this spot she was begging her estranged husband to leave the people alone. she was a beautiful person full of goodness and some good will come out of her death.

on october 21st, 2012 i received a phone call that no one should receive. i was told my sister had been killed. she was killed by her estranged husband. he later learned he had bought the gun through armslist.com. an internet site that doesn't require background check. it hasn't been two years since she was murdered and it it is heart breaking to know our weak gun laws allow people to buy

guns without a background check. she was married for 13 years and eventually left her husband because she abused her physically and mentally. she continued to terrorize her. slashing her tires while at work and threatening her physically. she went to court and obtained a protective order and told the judge your honor i don't want to die. i just don't want to die. under a federal law, this protective order prohibited ratcliff from buying a gun. if he had tried to buy a gun from a licensed dealer he would have been denied. he knew that. so he chose to go through an unlicensed dealer to buy the

gun. he went on armslist.com and posted an ad saying serious buyer looking to buy a gun as asa,p. he found a seller within hours, met at mcdonalds and exchanged the $500 for the gun he used the next morning. this was all after the order was issued against him and entered into the system. >> the next day he walked into where she worked and shot seven people, killed three people, injured 7 others baton rouge

taking his own life. i am convinced he bought the gun from the unlicensed dealer because he knew we could thought pass the background check.

require background checks for all gun sales and keep guns out of that hands of users. i am grateful for the opportunity to share my sisters are with you today. she was a loving mom, a terrific sister for nearly two years now how my family has lived a nightmare. every. mother's day is now a day to survive rather than celebrate because we know that see is not here to watch over girls. she won't be here to take pictures of her youngest daughter dressed up from or congratulate her daughter's on their wedding day. those moments will be happy and sad at the same time. and i am committed to honor

memory by working to reduce the number of women who are killed by preventable and senseless gun violence. you have the power to pass the laws that we need to keep our sisters and mothers and daughters safe. and so i am here today to ask you to remember. when you think about taking action on this issue. thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak today. i'd be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. daniel. you have very well and very powerfully represented your sister today in this hearing room. as the chairman i am going to be here until the end, so i will reserve my questions and allow my colleagues to proceed ahead

of me and recognize first my friend, the distinguished senator from minnesota. >> thank you very much from. thank you to all of the witnesses and particularly mr. mr. daniel. thank you so much. i where your sister's bracelet that you gave me today with pride. she won't be forgotten. and i think one of the things that is most powerful about your testimony is the fact that you are a hunter, gun owner, a member of the nra. could you talk a little bit about how you reconcile that which has been an issue for our colleagues, those of us the support huntington with the fact that we are simply looking at some common sense rules here. for instance, making sure that we include partners on we look at the domestic violence rolls, making sure we have good background checks and place and

looking at making sure that people are convicted of stalking to you want to talk about how you reconcile that? >> your note : it is totally different. during the background check it has nothing to do with infringing on my second amendment. me as a gun owner, i want to make sure that i keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. i don't want criminals or abusers to get their hands on guns, and i think every gun owner should feel the same way as i do. i go through background checks and actually, i feel that everybody should go through background checks, without a doubt. it takes five men's to filiform. in my case in illinois, three days.

usually i get the gun in delicate tissue for two or three weeks until i get my family or whoever. so to me common-sense that we should have background checks on all gun sales. >> thank you very much. thank you for your testimony. my mom was born in wisconsin. i think you'll also are from a state that understands how important hunting as and have identified yourself as a conservative republican. do you want to talk about how you have been able to reconcile that hunting is incredibly, domestic prohibition to.

>> have sworn to protect the wisconsin constitution. so coming from a family of hunters, myself being one, i understand the importance of preserving our second amendment, but the key words here are law abiding citizens. as a law-enforcement officer that is especially high and because we are the ones on the frontline responding to these dangers calls. if you look at the statistics by the fbi and hundred 50 law enforcement officers have lost their lives responding to these types of calls. >> exactly. he want to talk a little bit about what you have seen with just a law enforcement and the cases they you use as an example of the women being bound and put into a freezing garage in the snow and curly would have died without air intervention and good detective work?

can you talk a little bit about how this sort of dating arrangement and the stocking and those kinds of things have evolved in your time has law enforcement? particularly looking at how stocking works. if you're just sending a bunch of e-mails that is not scary to people. and also pursue her overtime the are people that date that can also be victims. >> i certainly can answer that. what i have seen speaking with my fellow sheriff's, we have seen in uprise and individuals to cohabitate together as opposed to being married. the domestic violence, as i mentioned, is just as vicious and just as dangerous. when we look at stocking, looking at some statistics from 2005-2013, the state of wisconsin suffered 29 domestic violence homicides. with of those 29, all of them

were precipitated by a history of stalking behavior. >> very good. and for your law enforcement officers, when most people think about law enforcement officers out there doing their job to my dog actually -- what you think some of the most dangerous calls they get? it would pelvis a robbery. maybe think about john driving. and not sure they would say domestic violence call would endanger an officer's life parisi you want to elaborate on that? >> absolutely. as we mentioned above the statistics of 150 lot force and offices losing their lives, it is a well-known fact to by the police academies the way we treat entrain law-enforcement officials said they taught domestic violence, domestic disturbance calls of the most dangerous. and but we are hearing into the details about.

oftentimes when guns are involved it turns to deadly consequences or violence. >> but the story of officer schneider. showing up. when the department is called, they can't question it. ages show up at the door. >> it is unfortunate. the abuser has told the dispatcher that he will shoot law enforcement. we had won two weeks ago and received and it said he will she ever law enforcement officer. >> to think you for being here today. thank you for your thoughtful words. i do appreciate that, the need to enforce the laws we have on the books.

i also appreciate your understanding that the laws have to be up-to-date. think with the sheriff was pointing of the you understand, a lot of these partners now did involved in these -- violence in the same way that people who are married the willingness to look at that piece of it. dr. campbell, i just want to talk a little bit about the link. you've done a lot of research. the link between the stocking in the violence against women. could you talk of data was your research shown? >> the national case control study comparing women who have been killed with other abused women in mainsails -- the same cities, we have found the vast majority of women who were killed bin stock before and.

even when there was no prior physical violence the majority of ben stopped. we found that of the ones that were abused and then there was a murder after word, it was 87 percent of them were stocked. the ones that were not abused, it was 58%. so clearly it was part of the picture, as was gun ownership. that combination of domestic violence and gun ownership is extremely dangerous. people think just talking means harassing. and when laws are violated commit is when someone has been texas 40 times a day with threatening texas. clearly unwarranted. and most often, especially with

the homicide cases, it was actually following him by doing things like slashing tires it was mentioned in one of the cases, destroying property. it was not just the verbal harassment, not just the e-mails >> because one of the criticisms was that in modern days now people don't always called. they often times text or send e-mails. not that scary if they do it by text message, but you see a lot of that. >> absolutely. and it is threatening. threatening e-mails. >> qualifications. >> absolutely. threatening and unwanted techs and e-mails and continual. >> i think my time is up and read and may come back and a second round. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you for holding this hearing. thank you to all of our expert panel. i want to mentioned that i am very pleased to be working with my partner from connecticut who has been a real leader in this area. i know he joins me in thanking me jackson family for being here today. let me ask dr. campbell, based on your research, do women take the decision lightly and to seek a temporary restraining order? >> absolutely not. neither do judges in granting them. i've talked with many judges, and when and very carefully consider their options. many go forth temporary protective orders and to not get them. judges are very careful and listening to what evidence is available around the temporary

restraining orders. so they are neither sought nor granted lightly. >> and i believe judge mccaffrey contemporary restraining orders often are not made permanent because when are afraid to appear for the hearing. >> absolutely. that is what we find. oftentimes they are afraid because they have been threatened with a weapon argon. that is the scariest thing for women in terms of the enforcement me and making it that they are less able to actually seek that long-term protective order. we also find that day hearing that goes with the long-term protective order is the time that he will know where she is. and that can be an increased danger unless we take some protective actions around that.

and if she knew that he was not allowed to have a gun she could be less afraid of that access to her at the hearing. >> as you may know, and lori jackson's case there was a temporary restraining order which was going to be made permanent literally the day after she was gunned down. it is that restraining order had resulted in those guns being taken from our estranged husband, believe that she might well be alive today. >> i agree. we just had a case in maryland with a similar kind of incident. and fortunately now in maryland we just passed a bill where we can deny possession of guns to persons who have been -- at a temporary restraining order in some, but it is not true in all

states brigid if it is an issue for many women. >> and laura jackson's case her estranged husband actually traveled to another stable where guns might have been obtained. wouldn't it make sense to have a uniform national rules that take guns away from men or women who are under temporary as well as permanent restraining orders? >> i believe so. >> and let me ask you, based on your expertise whether you agree that a uniform national standard would make sense. and now you are a local law enforcement official, but wouldn't your job be made more effective if there was such a standard? >> absolutely. i think we need to look at why victims seek these protection orders. they do so because they have are reasonable fear for safety. they are not taken lightly. i can only speak for my community, with the victim's i have spoken to seek these

important pieces of paper because they fear whether safety irrespective of a live in a certain county that fear is real >> can you tell me again, dr. campbell or any of the other folks on the panel to know whether the danger to a potential victim increases after she read indicates she is leaving, wants a divorce, the relationship is over. does the danger increase? >> yes. it definitely is according to our study and other research. definitely increases the risk of homicide, especially in the immediate three months and full first year after she leaves and abusive relationship. it does heighten the danger, which says to us that is the time from when we need to be

particularly vigilant, we need to, in order to prevent those homicides and the onus of responsibility should not be on her. many to bring the full bear of the law and implement those laws around the country. >> this panel has been extraordinarily valuable in reinforcing and evidencing, objective facts and research and support of what we know from our experience and from the tragic story. lori jackson's family among them i want to thank all of you for being here today. has given us impetus in this effort to solve this problem, which we will do. thank you very much. >> i turn now to our distinguished ranking member.

>> mr. chairman, before the talks i would like to apologize to mr. daniel for missing his testimony and say that we are sorry for the loss the year talked-about. also, to apologize to everybody here because this is an apology i have done for the third time in the last half-hour. canoe's conference with the senator and then a group of people what i work with very closely. it served way to treat all you folks to come here, but i appreciate your understanding that. my first question is going to be to professor about. our kentucky law took effect this month that allows people received an emergency protective order in pass our background check to obtain a provisional concealed carry permit.

of view this as a law that enables victim's to protect themselves even when the police are not around and when their abusers would not show up in the background check to you support the ability of people who obtain emergency protective orders to quickly obtain a provisional concealed carry permit? >> yes, i do. as the perfect way to help women who feel endangered. we have heard a lot of stories about people who have temporary restraining orders are priced at restraining orders and nonetheless or harmed by the person who was to be restrained. you mentioned list of states that have not been raided makes it much easier for someone who should not get a gun together. the altar protection as to the individual and.

no police department can't protect the to allow women to have a firearm and. absolutely protection. think it's essentially a great idea. >> justice mccaffrey, you have been a police officer. sometimes you're ordered to -- the person subjects of the order of surrender, sometimes you did not so ordered. based on your experience what practical problems to you think would arise if appeals before the committee dressing domestic violence and guns were to be enacted into law. >> senator, first off, let me say that we have these types of laws on the boards of our state. so much of it comes down to enforcement. let me just give you an idea. dr. campbell pointed out house

sometimes it could be tough for a victim. understand something, something that i hope he'll understand. the jurors is there to make sure is a level playing field. whenever the allegations are there are factual, for real, not made up and not getting the system. we have federal orders that constrain the number of prisoners we can put in our county jails. we have state laws now coming down. where will we put these people? will we keep hearing is we have to downplay or downgrade some of the loss so that we don't put people in state custody. our second largest budget item. we keep getting told that we

don't have the space intervenor leon, the average amount of the system, keep them out of the jails and give them the treatment they need so that they can cut down on the need to put people in jail. understand something people one of the things we have to worry about are people that came the system. what time mean by that? right now you have approximately ten to 12,000 custody cases waiting to be adjudicated. that means if you file today their custody case may not be up until april of 2015. think about that. now to us some of the people who know how to gain the system will pick up the phone : 11 the beginning. if the judge -- it's the job of

the judge to make sure that these people are not giving a system. otherwise we have an accused really is doing what they're being accused of. >> this will have to be my last question. requiring criminal background checks as zero s to dating violence abusers and stalkers however only last year an interview, he said, i'm opposed setting any regulation that would require the farmer and to somehow conductance and/or pay for a background check of a neighbor and former tell me one of the soul of fire rather than trying to strip away our constitutional rights i believe lawmakers need to define private sale and retail sales.

more regulation will increase stock purchases. if a criminal is bent on doing evil he or she will simply find a weapon on the streets or solicit a third party to make the weapon purchase who pay in the same interview you oppose limiting magazines and capacities of ten boats are more in an accompanying -- and i completely agree. he said in an interview we must not allow the actions of a few cards who are bent on evil to promote any laws that infringe upon constitutional liberties of responsible, law-abiding citizens. so why do you now say that you are in favor of the universal background check and believe that they would stop criminals from obtaining guns? >> simply put, and you said it best, law-abiding citizens.

law-abiding citizens. i've always said that i have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens. we have individuals who are bent on evil, but on breaking the laws, but, abusing women. they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. >> thank you very much. thank you all of you. >> thank you very much. what me and ask dr. campbell, somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons that can be used. why is it that guns in particular in create the added risk of violence that you have

chronicled in your work? and in. >> well, for one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes a far more stab wounds, were carefully placed. >> morley to. >> much more lethal. secondly, i have examined the thousands of homicide records in the paris apartment, and many of those cases, it is clear that there may have been a domestic violence incident, maybe someone would have gotten hurt him but no one would die if there was not a gun accessible, way too handy, already there, oftentimes not a gun at anybody went out and bought the day before, although that does happen. but again that has been in the home, the perpetrator has owned

for years. and it was easy to get at, all too available in a moment of extreme vigor. they're for someone died. so those of the two things. >> you talked about the environment of tension in and high emotion and a domestic violence seen. is it as dangerous even to vote a trained, armed law enforcement officer? what does that say about the environment for the victim to a record. >> and naturally, i think we talk about their share of violence and domestic violence calls. the numbers are real. the law enforcement officers that are murdered each year responding to these types of calls, they are inherently dangerous. we are armed and trained handle situations.

where normally stepping in the situations. >> how would you respond to dr. malcolm suggesting that adding yet another fireman to the question would make this a safe from situations for either the victim were officers? >> suggestion that the victim should arm themselves. >> yes. >> i share with you a story of victim's gun was removed from our by the abuser and she was murdered with there own weapon. let me give you a little bit of history. by jill has about 876 prisoners. we birchen ten -- boat and 10,000 citizens. every one of those arrests leaves behind victim's. typically women and children.

every one of those calls, we speak to those victims, get their statements. i've interviewed countless victims of domestic violence. never once of tired of victim tell me that -- where is the nearest town sheriff? >> your professional. let me ask you to questions of constitutional law. the first this, does making sure that people who are lawfully required to have a background checks actually get a background check send any constitutional principle? >> no. the questions can be intrusive.

>> i'm just asking, to the extent there are lawful, having it be enforced abuse second question, where the existing domestic violence laws otherwise restrict gun possession by stalker or abuser, does the difference between a cohabiting victim's and a non cohabiting victim raise any constitutional issues? >> no. >> copay. >> can i add something? >> my time is up. >> i'm sorry. was not here to hear testimony. thank you for being here. from what i need for your testimony, the key element here was that her former husband had

access to done over the internet where he was not subject to any kind of background check. had he been subject to one he might have been caught and stopped from purchasing the weapon. >> said he gone through a federal coalesces dealer he would have been denied access because his record was entered already has an abuser. >> you probably said this with the record, but it bears repeating. as a person who owns guns, a member of the nra, a conservative, are you worried or do you have any concerns over requirements of law that would close the gun show loophole and in fact require that we inquire of all purchasers whether they are in fact prohibited from purchase because of a conviction or because of the state of

mental instability. >> none whatsoever. i believe most gun owners would agree with me. there should be a background checks done. >> i have from downstate illinois part of most families and they would agree with you. >> most of my friends are hunters, nra members. we often speak of this. i have not had a person yet say no and just to me it is common sense. as a gun owner masterly to not want comes to fall into the hands of criminals or abusers. it makes the rest of. >> professor, do you believe that victims of domestic abuse are safer if their abusers are permitted to carry guns while the subject of a temporary

restraining orders to back you have to turn your microphone on. >> i think that to know that that person actually is an abuser, i am assuming it is a he, entitled to have a hearing first. >> as of the issuance of a temporary restraining order suggest in most cases are hearing? >> it does they accuse a person. and the weapons are taken away and then they have a hearing. >> convicted domestic violence perpetrators of a temporary restraining order pending in each of those cases. >> changes so that the -- in order to protect the woman there

is this opportunity to make the allegation. >> there is no question. in some instances the person who is the subject of the order will appear. that is a reality. i've been through that. a situation now where a woman terrorized by her boyfriend or former spouses at his mercy as long as he refuses to come to court? >> no. if he doesn't show up, at least it gives them the opportunity to be heard. that provides enough enchants for the evidence to come out. >> unless the temporary restraining order is issued to protect the woman from a starter , the abuser, the person who is perpetrating called once that is issued to use to go borrow with the notion that we

should at that point take the gun away from that person? >> note. i think once there's been a fair hearing and evidence has been presented then if this person does seem to be really poses a threat that is where. >> over the task dr. campbell what you think about this argument dealing with a woman who has been terrorist or as evidence of abuse to present to the court. >> in order to obtain a temporary order they have to issue the temporary order. the permanent court and long term orders, there's a fuller hearing but that is when perpetrators have the opportunity to appear to be.

>> i have been through this. anyone who has headed domestic practice has gotten the phone call. i am scared of this guy. it does not happen often the first instinct of most persons is protect the person being threatened. argue it out an accord later but first protect the person being threatened. i think that's the premise of this whole discussion. >> and a judge does have to issue that they are concerned with a level playing field in issuing an order. they want to hear evidence before the temporary order. >> i wanted thank you for this hearing and for sponsoring this and card bill which our support in its entirety. it is said in this day and age.

this is one of the few hearings on the subject. it has been over a year since we seriously debated this matter. while gun violence perpetrated by criminals facilitated by straw purchasers, sadly the result of a system which does not protect victims' i hope it will inspire us. >> you have been a leading advocate of the senate in this area for a long time. your home state of eleanor was extraordinarily ably represented on the panel illinois shines today. i turn now to the senator for a second round we have to wake up before 1:00. >> thank you very much, mr.

mr. chairman. i know you wanted to follow-up. wanted to get at this issue. maybe this is what it's about supporter and a co-sponsor. think it's a good idea. put that aside for right now and talk about a permanent restraining orders that are in law, federal law right now. perris restraining orders. do you support that? >> yes. >> if you would extend that to dating partners. this is what i want to get at. a big part of my bill, extending that definition of people who get a restraining orders are get a conviction to be victims. >> i think the full hearing. >> by nature they're is a full hearing.

>> i don't think it should be retroactive to everybody who has ever been convicted. >> the other thing i was thinking about it, and numbers these days on the reduction, on one ticket doctor campbell's few of that. and some of the work we have done here, the work that justice the paschal has done when he was in law enforcement, we have a domestic violence court in minnesota. they've talked about whether we're doing. it has made a difference. we have seen a reduction in those rates. i wonder if you would comment on that and then comment particularly on domestic violence and what we are still seeing in terms of the numbers. >> we are extremely pleased and i think we should all be proud

that the domestic violence homicides have gone down. but clearly from the data they've gone down in part, in great part because of a gun restrictions that were put on known domestic violence offenders and the has been upheld by the supreme court. it's clear that that is where those reductions have come prom. yet we need to do more to reduce the domestic violence homicide by other means, to be proactive, be prepared to. we can continue to reduce the domestic violence homicides with guns if we continue to expand the legislation that allows us. >> look at just refining the law we see that things change. you have a lot of people that still get involved in domestic violence.

you always want to get out there. we reduced crime. but when you are a victim of crime those statistics don't mean anything. it's your sister's killer your child. and so the way i look at this is it's a way to build on some of the work that has been done in the domestic violence field and to understand that we see a changing situation with the population. we have to be sophisticated. that is what this is really about. i just wondered if you could maybe share a comment on a. >> you're looking at -- what is your question? >> the question is about how this situation has changed with trading partners, the need to update and in part because of the internet, some great things, but just more and more stocking

and more and more ways for people to track people down. maybe in the past they could just kind of hide and get a new address or phone number, why we need have a bill like this past. >> and i can tell you from what i have seen to all we are seeing more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses. we have heard this. more women are killed by their abusive boyfriends. that said, and we talk about stocking and how that relates. a hoesch shares statistics we had here. twenty-nine domestic violence homicides of precipitated by history. that behavior, the technology is great. include to the smart phone these days. >> appreciate you have not done about was talking. >> we're glue to these devices.

they can be used to facilitate criminal behavior. i don't know how we would go about regulating the pave year when it comes to technology. >> what i was meeting, the reason we have us talking beer is because we have seen her recent estimate of 27,000 convicted starkers. we have seen because of the new technology there are new ways to find people who execute. >> thank you very much. let me ask, you said earlier that in a budget -- they have to provide a level playing field when an abuse victim requests 80 ro.

to you believe that judges to provide that level playing field to they hand out temporary restraining orders casually? >> did we take this very seriously, especially when it comes to victims. in philadelphia in pennsylvania we have been on the leading edge, the cutting edge of protecting women that have gone through these types of dramatizing events. again, as i said earlier, it is far, far more than just handguns it's all domestic violence. and judges to take it seriously. we have up police department now with a directive 90 that makes sure that our police officers fill out a specific form and file on domestic abuse allegations. the bottom line is it is one of

our most -- other than child abuse, special victim's abuse it is one of our most important criminal investigations. so yes. >> dr. malcolm, do you dispute that? >> whether they take it seriously or not? >> well, they take it seriously and they require a showing of fact indicating dangerousness and threat. >> i'm sure that's what they do now. is just the need to people, the person who is being accused. also one person comes in brightener pretended to be frightened. just trying to get to the head of the list. >> i read the testimony. when you see pretended to be frightened. how much courage it takes, how much strength and resoluteness

it takes, not to mention -- >> sometimes embarrassing fact to a complete stranger. >> we also heard from the judges that there are people who game the system. people should be able to protect themselves. they can't really depend on the police to protect and. there is an important case in the district of columbia, 1981, with three roommates -- >> why would a woman game the system to protect herself from the dire and dangerous physical -- >> well, we heard from the judge as this morning the there were all of these long list of cases.

the cancer to the top of the list. that's something i would not have known. >> and aren't there proceedings without the other side represented and many other circumstances where equally important decisions are made such as searching houses, surveiling telephones, putting liens on property? >> if that is the case we don't need to add another one. i don't think that people's homes should be searched for weapons on a mere allegation. they have had no opportunity. and it's dangerous for the police to go in there without this person even having notice. so i think that it does not provide the opportunity for evidence from both parties.

i think that is necessary. i realize it's difficult for women, frightening to make allegations. many never do because there are so frightened. the support network to help these people. but i think that all of that being said, from the evidence that i have seen, half of the accused persons when mary after the hearing. >> there is an opportunity to be heard. >> there is right now. >> and if they're is a temporary restraining order and if the proposal i have made became law there would be an opportunity to be heard within two weeks. >> within two weeks. so immediately they guns did taken away or any other evidence. >> right. [inaudible conversations] >> you know, to me, you know, you are guilty until you put yourself into something else.

your property gets taken away immediately. with all of the danger and later on the get the chance to say something. >> you are opposed to any kind of temporary restraining order? >> not if they're is a hearing at the time. only if it is two or three weeks, some other time later. >> what if the assailant, the abuser is unavailable? >> well, if you will provide the opportunity for that person to come to the hearing, notify that person that there is a hearing in they don't show of then that is their fault, but at least you're providing the opportunity . >> how much notice and time would you give that person? >> i don't know. >> these are practical realities of trying to protect people.

>> i will tell you practical realities. the police cannot be every where all the time. >> when someone represents a threat and the judge as to protect a woman and a woman. >> there are other ways. >> an assailant who has a gun and has indicated that he wants to harm her. i don't know whether you have been in that responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract ideas. their practical, threatening realities. >> they are, but you don't know for sure what the story is. unless both people have an opportunity to be heard. a person as an opportunity before something is done against him. >> just to be clear, you don't think that the police should be

allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for a firearm? >> i think that they can be allowed to, but they need to have a temporary restraining order. there ought to be a hearing before that happens. >> for a search warrant there is not hearing. if you're rule applies to a temporary restraining order the same rule would apply to a search warrant. to quote what i think you said earlier, police should not be allowed to go into someone's house looking for a firearm which is exactly what they do. >> they have to have evidence. [inaudible conversations] when they often go when, more and more violence takes place. >> a higher evidentiary standard for a search warrant and there is for temperatures trending order. >> i think that for a temporary restraining order under these conditions are you have one

person coming in the need to have the other person her before the property is taken away. >> isn't that what happens in a search warrant? if the evidence is credible they execute the search warrant. that happens every day. are you really suggesting that police should not be authorized so do that? >> i am not suggesting they should not be authorized. >> but not a temporary restraining order. >> a temporary restraining order to protect somebody where only that one person has been hurt by the judge. >> that is exactly this circumstance and a search warrant. that is your logic it must apply to search warrants which puts you in a position of saying that search warrant should not be executed by the police. i don't think that makes a lot of sense. >> i don't think it makes a lot of sense to invade someone's house and take their property without their having had a chance to be heard about it.

>> which is precisely what a search warrant does. so obviously he felt thing search warrants are appropriate. if that is your position, then that is your position. >> the think the way that the law now works -- you are changing the way that the lawn now works in these cases. the way the law now works there is an opposition day for people to be heard. he had asked me what if they don't show up, well, that is there problem. at least there is an opportunity to be heard before they're put under a temporary restraining order. that is the issue here. if i can just make one other comment, i also think that with temporary restraining orders all of these issues and now, the potential victim has to depend on the police being able to be there. i think that is a real concern. this case that i was going to

mention where there were women who were abused and the police never can, a fundamental principle of american law they're under no general duty. i think in that case there isn't -- people can't really depend on the police. they need to be able to protect themselves. >> any last words? >> yes, i agree that we cannot be everywhere as law-enforcement the judge could comment we certainly can't be everywhere. we do count and our assistance and encourage them to exercise could due diligence. i would never tell someone they should not arm themselves if they are a law-abiding citizen. there's nothing wrong with that.

the issue we have is those who should not have weapons, those who are convicted domestic violence abusers, those who are stalkers, those who represent a public safety threat to not only victims will law-enforcement. that is what this is about. >> i will a suppressed -- >> if i may just add one quick note. i will supplement it for the record. the notion requires both sides to be heard before there can be a wiretap or surveillance or search warrant, search and seizure. put aside domestic violence would not only undercut but cripple the protection of innocent citizens as the chairman well knows from his experience in the intelligence area. surveillance is done when one

side, when there is sufficient threat. a constitutional system depends on the balance of the exigencies of threats to individual safety or national security as against those constitutional rights that may be temporarily infringed upon. >> as attorney general i actually had to go and get some of those warrants myself. that is one of the restrictions. the exercise of power. the attorney general shall appear in prison. so we are well familiar with that. the hearing will remain open for an additional week. if any one -- i should set the record of the hearing for an additional week. but i have to say how very grateful i am to the senators

for their lead in this area but, how extraordinarily grateful i am to the witnesses for being here, particularly for those who brought personal stories that have had such a dramatic affect on their lives. to those of you in the audience, thank you for your advocacy. to those of you have suffered losses to we are with you. we will not forget it and appreciate what you're doing. a hearing is chaired. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the house of representatives has approved their resolution allowing the to pursue a lawsuit

against president obama. .. >> so there's a bunch of stuff that needs to get done. unfortunately i think the main vote and correct me if i'm wrong here congressman and the main that was scheduled for today